You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The wary tone that can exist in the relationship between the psychoanalytic world and the group world began with Freud in his paper, “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” (Freud, 1921), wherein Freud prefaced his remarks by stating clearly that his knowledge of group life is scant, but then goes on to make two statements that are noteworthy: “The group appears to us as a revival of the primal horde” (p. 123), an observation that evokes caution in the reader because it calls attention to the potentially destructive and regressive forces present in the group. However, Freud also says, “But even the group mind is capable of creative genius in the field of intelligence, as is shown above all by language itself, as well as by folk-song, folklore and the like” (p. 83), a gentle acknowledgement that a group may be capable of “good.” Freud’s comments contained elements of truth then and still do, despite his self-proclaimed ignorance; however, many events occurred in the decades following Freud’s comments that, rather than filling the gaps of knowledge acknowledged by him, have often widened and deepened a chasm between the two modalities and bodies of theoretical knowledge. Growth in the knowledge bases of both fields, bolstered by extensive amounts of clinical practice and good research, places us at a time in history where the guarded aspects of the relationship could be lessened. It may be time for integration based on what we now know about the behavior of human beings. But, first, let’s look at what happened in both worlds.
Late in the nineteenth century, within the context of Victorian society, Freud, discovering the unconscious life of the individual, was excited about it. Focused there and surrounded by a culture that did not support his ideas, he was far less interested in external factors, forces, and influences. Indeed, followers who expressed interests in external factors and relationships, i.e., Jung, Adler, and Reich, were eit